<quoted text>No, it's about repression. When I can legally marry another dusty mangina, there's no affect on your marriage. You are still as married as you ever were. Nothing changes, the world continues to rotate daily, and haters will still be haters.

<quoted text>Of course not. Pure democracy is a lamb and two wolves voting on what's for dinner. We need protection from the tyranny of the majority. Like 99% of us voting for the candidate that would raise taxes on 1% of us! Stuff like that.I am just trying to make the point that new laws are always more acceptable to doubters when the majority favors them. And that much of the opposition to gay marriage is not opposition per se, but opposition to it being imposed by judicial fiat.

This isn't judicial, it's constitutional. Why is it that everytime a judge proves something is constitutional everyone starts screaming about activist judges?

Same sex marriage is like abortion or women combat troops in the front lines. Same sex marriage is like gender apartheid marriage where before marriage had perfect gender diversity, integration and union.Judges should rule by law, not wright law. Sympathy isn't the function of justice, maybe they should go to church, where they encourage charity and mercy. Law is for consistent results along tradition and precedent, not radical new standards of marriage.

Oh boy, more bumper sticker slogans with no substance offered in explanation. Gender apartheid is separation of the sexes keeping them apart. Same sex marriage doesn't accomplish this. It only permits roughly 2%(or whatever your favorite stat) of the population the ability to marry their partner. It has no bearing on my marriage. These are just more of your unsupportable claims, like the whole forced marriages in prison (thanks, BTW, for the link showing Canada's experiences over the last 6 or 7 years regarding the "epidemic" of forced marriages in their prison system).

Judges do rule based upon laws. They often have to interpret laws. They also rule upon the constitutionality of laws. They don't "wright" laws.

I am intetested in seeing whether or not you can expand upon your first sentence in the post I've quoted. Tell us just how same sex marriage is like abortion or putting women in combat. Try some clear and cogent arguments rather than just making the claim that they're alike.

putting aside the issue of the vote, a vote should be upheld both sides rallied and the losers of the vote should not have voted if they were unwilling to accept the outcome of the vote.

regarding this issue, america should relabel marriages as domestic partnership. this would render all couples equal and "marriage" would remain a religious ceremony for those whom choose to do it.. like baptism

putting aside the issue of the vote, a vote should be upheld both sides rallied and the losers of the vote should not have voted if they were unwilling to accept the outcome of the vote.regarding this issue, america should relabel marriages as domestic partnership. this would render all couples equal and "marriage" would remain a religious ceremony for those whom choose to do it.. like baptism

Civil ceremonies are marriages, church weddings are already called Holy Matrimony.

<quoted text>Civil ceremonies are marriages, church weddings are already called Holy Matrimony.

okay i didn't know this thank you, i think this should be more publically addressed. I would like to see equal rights for all, and some atheists choose not to get married, i would like to see equal rights for all and putting fanaic haters aside, it seems most religous people want to save "their" word/rite "marriage" which is actually already sepertately catagorized as Holy Matrimony

<quoted text>No, it's about repression. When I can legally marry another dusty mangina, there's no affect on your marriage. You are still as married as you ever were. Nothing changes, the world continues to rotate daily, and haters will still be haters.

Why bother regulating marriage at all? Why does it matter who marries who? You could've easily said, "....legally marry two dusty manginas, or a related dusty mangina, or dusty womangina? Why does it mmatter who marries who legally, that is?

<quoted text>Why bother regulating marriage at all? Why does it matter who marries who? You could've easily said, "....legally marry two dusty manginas, or a related dusty mangina, or dusty womangina? Why does it mmatter who marries who legally, that is?

It certainly would be accepted better if it was done by popular vote. I think much of the opposition to same sex marriage isn't against it per se, but it is a backlash against making it legal by judicial fiat. I think if a popular vote were held today, it would probably pass. And avoid much backlash against it.

I disagree, a popular vote was taken in California, and a judge rewrote marriage law. Maryland is one of the very few cases of popular referendum in support of legislated same sex marriage law. Without a legislated model, I doubt the electorate would have agreed to same sex marriage.

[QUOTE]Full of Conservative Christians who risk their lives to help other overseas. Conservatives who care abs love others and send millions of dollars to help other countries in need!"

Most Conservative Christians are the ones pushing for killing and wars overseas.

[QUOTE]Why do you think Texas has no "kids gun down" problem?"

They do. Texas is one of the worst states in the union with the highest teen pregnancy, poverty, stupidity, illiteracy, etc.

[QUOTE]Did you know that cities that allow guns are less violent and have less crime?"

Not true. You are lying.

[QUOTE]Do you really think that taking guns from law abiding citizens will reduce crime?"

Yes Amerifat. Statistically it's been proven that less guns = less killing. Look at UK with only 35 deaths caused by guns last year.

Myth #3: Gun Control Has Reduced The Crime Rates In Other Countries

1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.12. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."53. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8

[QUOTE]Full of Conservative Christians who risk their lives to help other overseas. Conservatives who care abs love others and send millions of dollars to help other countries in need!"

Most Conservative Christians are the ones pushing for killing and wars overseas.

[QUOTE]Why do you think Texas has no "kids gun down" problem?"

They do. Texas is one of the worst states in the union with the highest teen pregnancy, poverty, stupidity, illiteracy, etc.

[QUOTE]Did you know that cities that allow guns are less violent and have less crime?"

Not true. You are lying.

[QUOTE]Do you really think that taking guns from law abiding citizens will reduce crime?"

Yes Amerifat. Statistically it's been proven that less guns = less killing. Look at UK with only 35 deaths caused by guns last year.

4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"910 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"* British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data:a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14* Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all.'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,'[a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16

[QUOTE]Full of Conservative Christians who risk their lives to help other overseas. Conservatives who care abs love others and send millions of dollars to help other countries in need!"

Most Conservative Christians are the ones pushing for killing and wars overseas.

[QUOTE]Why do you think Texas has no "kids gun down" problem?"

They do. Texas is one of the worst states in the union with the highest teen pregnancy, poverty, stupidity, illiteracy, etc.

[QUOTE]Did you know that cities that allow guns are less violent and have less crime?"

Not true. You are lying.

[QUOTE]Do you really think that taking guns from law abiding citizens will reduce crime?"

Yes Amerifat. Statistically it's been proven that less guns = less killing. Look at UK with only 35 deaths caused by guns last year.

Gun Crime Soars in England Where Guns Are BannedDecember 11, 2013Since NBC sportscaster Bob Costas gave us an anti-gun lecture two weeks ago during Sunday Night Football, we've heard a lot from progressives like Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and anti-gun advocacy groups about how countries in Europe with strict gun control laws don't have problems with gun crime. We've also heard the reason the United States has a "gun crime problem" is because we allow citizens to own handguns however, the numbers on violent crime committed using a gun tell a different story.

New data out from the UK, where guns are banned, shows gun crime has soared by 35 percent.

<quoted text>I disagree, a popular vote was taken in California, and a judge rewrote marriage law. Maryland is one of the very few cases of popular referendum in support of legislated same sex marriage law. Without a legislated model, I doubt the electorate would have agreed to same sex marriage.

I do believe it was quite a bit more complicated than you imply...

March 2000 California voters voted for prop 22 (61.4% to 38.2%), a law essentially identical to prop 8 that came later.

Prop 22 was ruled as unconstitutional by the California State Supreme Court in May of 2008.

Prop 8 (essentially the same as prop 22) passed as a constitutional amendment (52.24% to 47.76%) in Nov 2008.

Judge Walker overturned the law August 2010. A stay has held up any marriages for same sex couples though.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed Walker's decision and continued the stay Feb 2012.

It now awaits the US Supreme Court for final decision.

This is hardly the action of a single out of control judge. It also isn't the re-writing of anything by one judge.

No, it's about repression. When I can legally marry another dusty mangina, there's no affect on your marriage. You are still as married as you ever were. Nothing changes, the world continues to rotate daily, and haters will still be haters.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Why bother regulating marriage at all? Why does it matter who marries who? You could've easily said, "....legally marry two dusty manginas, or a related dusty mangina, or dusty womangina? Why does it mmatter who marries who legally, that is?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.